wowwikifandomcom_hu-20200213-history
Sablonvita:Tooltip/Archive01
Why having this one template for so many tooltips is a bad idea # As I found out today, it breaks tons of tooltips when you screw up. # It strains the wiki trying to update all of them which effectively puts it temporarily out of commission. # This one is actually quite inflexible for those things that we don't have examples of use with. # Because it affects so many pages, we have to lock it. # It really doesn't work well (to varying degrees) for several types of tooltips: abilities, spells, quests, regular mobs, named mobs, and recipes. Suggested alternative: Have a few different types of tooltip templates, but one more general one that mostly resembles the others in that it goes in a tooltip box, but only has a few non-specific parameters. works pretty well and we haven't tried to subsume it into , but we could make it look similar. Comments welcomed. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 7:01 PM PDT 21 Mar 2007 : Welcome to the concept of monoculture! I agree. At the least, character tooltips and item tooltips should not be the same template. Looking at the properties, equippable item tooltips might do well as a superset/separate tooltip. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT) : A lot of properties are of the nature "add this line", which could be done more genericly: : | : | : ... But would doing that make life harder on the server? --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT) Suggestions/Questions Meta Gem Requirements None of the attributes are remotely like them.... For text such as Requires at least 2 Yellow gems Requires at least 1 Red gem Should be a sort of greyish colour. An attempt: Swift_Skyfire_Diamond --Psyker7 10:31, 17 February 2007 (EST) :These are not currently part of the template, Nor is gem spell links. I'll have to update for the gem attributes (for now, please use them with attrib=) and the gem requirements i will add to (for now, i would suggest using this inside attrib= too, but after the gem spell links) soon. I'm still waiting on the update when i'll have to rewrite all of these.. but if it's no done by monday, i'll add it. Thanks for bringing the oversight to my attention though. -- 13:32, 17 February 2007 (EST) qitem and qbegins It would be more useful if the qitem= variable would accept a quest name and make a link to the quest rather than just Quest Item which seems redundant. Also qbegins= could point to the quest the item begins. If qitem=1, true or yes it could just point to Quest Item and qbegin=1, true or yes could just point to Quest Starting Item. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 4:33 PM PDT 6 Apr 2007 Durability I've left durability as a set value, not #/# like it is in WoW. As these are tooltips for items outside the game, there is never any need to show the current value of durability, only the total, as they will always be the same, so a single number is fine. -- 10:02, 24 January 2007 (EST) Resolved Suggestions/Questions Attributes I added a bunch of extra attrib slots to the template (attrib2 - attrib8). That should cover any bonuses to attributes and resistances. I didn't think there was a way to have the single attrib cover multiple bonuses. - ClydeJr 18:19, 23 January 2007 (EST) :They work the same way as the effect does. simply using after each attribute. -- 18:26, 23 January 2007 (EST) Width, Icons, etc. Played around a bit with the template while adding some tooltips, some suggestions. * If no width is specified, perhaps set a agreeable default width (18em?), not every implementation will know the exact width. * Implement an option to not render any icon, question mark or otherwise. Not every tooltip implementation will want an icon in the upper-right. Perhaps making the template show the question mark icon if Icon=none or Icon=needed is specified? I'll edit this further if I come across anything else. --Tusva 13:06, 24 January 2007 (EST) :*The default width is auto, resulting in full width of parent container (minus margins). This is so it can be used in a page where it has contraints of it's own (a column, a box etc that has width). I do not wish to set any explicit width on it because i do not beleive it ever should need it when used well. I've only been using 18em as it was the old tooltip's size, it looked ok and the existing article design calls for a fixed width. I do not like the design, i do not wish to use it, i do not wish to design templates for it. As with most of my templates, the option is there to use things i view as bad design (lack of namespaces, lack of good layout, lack of proper understanding of floats), but the defaults will be for working with a good design (namespaces, controlled layout, good use of floating). Its two values you need to provide, i think it's a fair compramise :/ :*I can easily make the icon changes, but i can't think of anything that does not have an icon associated to it. If you can think of an example, then i'll do that. :-- 13:18, 24 January 2007 (EST) ::The Icon suggestion was more so for flexibility. For example, if someone wanted to use this template but had the icon elsewhere on the article and did not want it repeated in the tooltip. To me, that would be most scenarios as the tooltip is to reflect the tooltip seen in-game, which does not contain the icon normally. ::Further, while I understand your desire to implement your personal sense of what is good and bad design on the wiki, I would suggest you perhaps keep a slightly more open mind when designing templates that are to be used by the community as a whole. It's my personal opinion that templates (especially one as this that is obviously geared towards being potentially used hundreds if not thousands of times in various articles) should serve to be flexible and useful by a large audience, rather than restricting itself in serving a particular user's design sensibilities. If this still doesn't appeal to you, I certainly hope you're understanding of others taking your templates and editing them to be more flexible (which is a fundamental aspect of Wikis, as well). Just my two copper, continue as you like. ;) --Tusva 13:44, 24 January 2007 (EST) :::Well the icon issue, if you might have noticed, i've been removing icons from the pages and only having them in the tooltip. Think of them as a replacement to infoboxes for items (and npcs), with the icon serving as the image to give wow players familiarity while still having the information wikified. :::To the width, either i wasn't clear you you missed the point. I'm not restricting use in ways i don't agree with, i specifically make sure i do design thme so they can be used that way if people don't agree with me, but i'm not going to design with a priority for usage i don't agree with. So i am being open minded, and i consider two extra values being provided a very reasonable compramise for people wanting to do that. I've been setting the float and width manaully when i've been converting to this tooltip, as i know currently it needs to be that way, i also have checks that don't check for namespaces and produce results that don't give links with namespaces. The default functionality is designed with future improvements to the wiki in mind, improvements which i want to see take place, but not forcing their use. :::I'd rather not see people edit the template to change the default functionality to something i a) don't agree with b) already provide a simple and easy way to do already. -- 14:28, 24 January 2007 (EST) ::::The trouble here is you are attempting to implement a fairly global template (the item tooltip, which, as I said previously, could potentially be used very often) and as such there should be a greater than normal amount of attention given to flexibility. ::::I'll grant you the width thing, the user could very easily add in their own attribute, I was merely thinking of the user who just wants to drop it in without having to fiddle with the width. ::::However, as far as the icon is concerned, you are indeed forcing its use by not (currently) offering a way to not render the icon all together. What will end up happening, otherwise, are people writing slightly modified Templates that do what the article author wants, rather than using one in place that is more flexible. This is something I think we'd all like to avoid. --Tusva 14:59, 24 January 2007 (EST) :::::Well my templates usually come hot out of my sandbox, so they're setup for the proposals i've got planned. Sadly the need for certain things is growing faster than i can keep up, so this template was made live before things like the icon situation have never been discussed or proposed. :::::If we can get a dicussion going, and people decide otherwise, i'll always make the change. As to the case of the icon, it is a rather simple afair and adding the check has no impact on my own design thoughts, so i'll do it anyways. -- 15:11, 24 January 2007 (EST) Unique :Unique should be more simple. No matter if I put "Unique" or "Yes" or "1" or whatever as a value, the effect is still the same - it shows "Unique (Unique)", which is obviously redundant. -- Vysogota 21:01, 1 March 2007 (EST) ::Er.. i think you'll find it doesn't. ::Works perfectly fine, simple enough. :S Though i'd imagine i probably need to add proper documentation for it. -- 22:20, 1 March 2007 (EST) :Am I missing something or there's no block value for shields in the tooltip? -- Vysogota 12:54, 2 March 2007 (EST) ::Correct, it is missing. Ty, i'll add it. -- 18:26, 2 March 2007 (EST) :::And one more thing: what about wands? The tooltip has only simple "damage" option (which means physical) while wands deal with shadow/fire/arcane/nature/frost damage. I've just added Eredar Wand of Obliteration and had no way to put damage type properly (it should be Shadow Damage, not Damage). -- Vysogota 18:30, 2 March 2007 (EST) ::::I'm wondering that myself. It was one of the first things i ever added to the tooltip.. remember discussing it in IRC, i beleive it was established that wands no longer display it like that. It's not included in the attributes or something :S I'll get back to you on it and add it under bonus if it needs to be there. -- 19:44, 2 March 2007 (EST) :::: Well that was quick. Misunderstood you. Erm, yes bonus is there, just forgot to document it and it wasn't working correctly. So you should be able to just do dmg=100 - 200|bonus=Shadow for example. Fixing nad adding documentation now. -- 19:52, 2 March 2007 (EST) :::::Yeah, now it works, but why this bonus (i.e. Shadow) shows in blue instead of white? -- Vysogota 20:11, 2 March 2007 (EST) ::::::My bad, fixed ;x You certainly are diligent, though i'm glad you are :p -- 20:36, 2 March 2007 (EST) ::::::Just noticed your edit, sorry i'm so not with it atm.. : / -- 21:08, 2 March 2007 (EST) ::::::Ok, second bad.. The old version was still needed.. the form you want i've renamed to dmgtype, and bonus is now the + damage that wands used to use and some items still do. >_o; -- 23:09, 2 March 2007 (EST) Some requests #I know this might be a pain, since this template is suppose to serve a variety of purposes, but I have a few requests that would make the template more informative and require less stuff outside the tooltip. #* id like - Some id parameters for external links... Suggested new id parameters: #** item-id-thot, item-id-alla, item-id-wowh - ids for various DBs #** mob-id-thot, mob-id-alla, mob-id-wowh - ids for various DBs (should work for NPCs as well) #** spell-id-thot, spell-id-alla, spell-id-wowh - spell ids for various DBs (probably works for abilities and powers too) #:Anyway, just a thought. It could make things too complicated or make the tooltip large and unwieldy. #Add Source and Use info that appears at the bottom of Thottbot tooltip info. This is helpful to quickly see where you can get the item or what it is used for without having to scroll down to a Source section or look at categories. #Have parameters for reduced the box and font-size like vs. . --Fandyllic (talk · ) 2:55 PM PST 27 Feb 2007 :1. Simple answer.. No. Longer answer.. Unessecary, if we have the information here (which we will), we don't need an external link for it and doing so would promote bias and become messy. These are not sources (and the intention is to have our own source anyway), they are external sources for information we aren't carrying. The Tooltip is ultimately a summary box (like quest box), and summarizing does not include notes and external information, it's for information the wiki carries. :2. I had considered this, but left it until requests popped up and that i got the default stuff down. I'm happy to do this once other bits are sorted, sure. :3. This is already automated by detecting pagename/namespace, no params. :-- 18:31, 27 February 2007 (EST) ::RE: 1. Simple answer.. No. Longer answer.. Unessecary, if we have the information here (which we will), we don't need an external link for it and doing so would promote bias and become messy. These are not sources (and the intention is to have our own source anyway), they are external sources for information we aren't carrying. The Tooltip is ultimately a summary box (like quest box), and summarizing does not include notes and external information, it's for information the wiki carries. :::I suppose it doesn't need these links, but I've noticed a few (quite a few actually) tooltips with wrong info and having an external link is a good way to double-check its accuracy. Also, many tooltips are missing info and if the external link is already there, then its easy to find out missing stuff and add it. WoWWiki will never be as complet and comprehensive as automated DBs, so assuming all items will have entries that don't need to be check for accuracy in WoWWiki is beyon optimistic and ranges toward foolish. ::RE: 3. This is already automated by detecting pagename/namespace, no params. ::: This sounds cool, but how does it work? The usage info should have an example. There should also be recommendations to put in the right places. :::This seems to work... :::But, it throws in extra stuff besides just the tooltip. ::--Fandyllic (talk · ) 3:04 PM PST 28 Feb 2007 :::;1:Crossed wires perhaps. The external links will be on the page irregardless, there's no need for them to be in the tooltip along with it. People can easily see the external links for the whole artilce in one section, and they intend to update the tooltip, they'll probably need to update the whole article too. Putting it in the tooltip too doesn't help them and jsut creates clutter from unessecary duplication. It it also limits what links can be included (hence the bias), and considering the recent vote on the external item's links in regard to Thottbot, it's not really a good idea to have it in a place of summary. ::::If you're suggesting to have it in the tooltips, for the possiblity of the tooltip being used outside it's own article, then there would be no benefit, as people would still have to go to the article page to make the changes, and thus be presented with the links again in double. :::;3:The old tooltip, used to have code in the pages itself, changing the css styling presets based on the outcome. This one, has that code in the template itself, resizing the font, the tooltip size (because this is based on font-size already) and the icon size based on the same condition (though slighlty modified to check namespaces too). I though i had mentioned it on the documentation, but i see i fogot. There isn't really much to document about it, just that it will adjust it's size and content based on where it's used. ::::As to that page, it does not have no include tags, that is why. The reason for this, tooltip translusion has never been a standard, and is a method i am against. If you've been following new item standardization vote and discussions, you'll see that this part has still not been voted on or an agreement reached (hopefully Adys will be back soon to help continue the advancement of it). Where many people have been using tooltips transclusion in other articles, i feel they should have been using instead or not at all. Possibly a future, more flexable, tooltip that can adapt to present only certain information (basically what has been talked about in regards to vendor items and sheets, just display the name, rarity, price and possibly icon). This is what i'm aiming for, but have made tooltip usuable incase i'm not agreed with. However, that doesn't mean i''' am going help bring that method about or popularize (e.g. I didn't add noinclude tags to the boilerplate, but someone else has since and i'm holding back on offering solutions for more advance transclusion methods until a verdict is established. ) :::Hopefully that clears things up. -- 18:51, 28 February 2007 (EST) Item Sets I know you've got Sets to do yet, so I thought I'd throw this out there, perhaps we can combine the two. Awhile ago, I came up with a series of templates that inserted the full set and its bonuses into item tooltips. Considering that I forsee us using this template (with further additions and tweaks) once (if, but it looks like we will) we start standardizing item pages. I set up the set tables as such (and yes, it's ugly, but it worked). There would be Template:Settable/tooltipbefore inserted before the tooltip css code, Template:Settable/Lightforge Armor (for example) inserted after the tooltip and then Template:Settable/tooltipafter inserted after the set page. The point of all this embedding was to keep the item set information floated to the right along with the tooltip. Obviously with this final tooltip template we won't have to do that. I could forsee a "set" variable and having the template call that template (a modified verison of Template:Settable/Lightforge Armor perhaps, with the css style for it templated elsewhere). Anywho, just a bunch of thoughts. Wondering how you were going to go about doing sets. --Tusva 10:43, 29 January 2007 (EST) :I'm still wondering myself actually. That stuff is nice, but i don't for see taking that direction (especially having the set as a template external to an article). I have two thoughts. :#Sets lists on category pages. Item's then can associate themselves to the category, and can either :##Link to the set category in the tooltip. :##Include the set category in the tooltip. :#Set lists in the default namespace (seems a waste to me) and same as above, either :##Link to the set in the tooltip. :##Include the set in the tooltip. :Any other ideas, i'm open to hearing them. Probably use a template similar to yours for the set list itself, but with the ability to pull it into the tooltip in the correct format if people decide on 1.2 or 2.2. -- 11:00, 29 January 2007 (EST) ::I think perhaps using the existing set namespace (ie Lightforge Armor) to be included in the tooltip would be best. This would let us have the information in only one place (be it templated, CSS'd or otherwise) and just pull from there. The trick would be to standardize this information in all the Armor set pages, but that's not too difficult. I do like the idea of categorizing Armor sets, though. (ie: Category: Armor Set: Lightforge Armor maybe?) --Tusva 13:09, 29 January 2007 (EST) :::Doh! It's on the boilerplate but no way to include sets yet =( --Psyker7 21:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT) :::I think it should be removed from the boilerplate - or at least noted as nonfunctional - until it actually works, to prevent confusion. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT) Create, Recipes, Styles Is the '''create syntax supposed to be for recipes or something else? I'm not quite sure I understand why it outputs Item: when called. I was toying around with using this template for a recipe (see Design: The Frozen Eye), and as you can see sort of crow-bar'd the item in there. Also, I think that when the tooltip is called into another page, it should have font sizes similar to Smalltooltipcss (a'la Auchenai Staff/Tooltip), as the one currently (The Violet Eye#Rewards) is a bit hard on the eyes. -- 09:55, 30 January 2007 (EST) :I'll have a look at the font size changes later. As to recepies, i forget where it was dicussed, but i gave good and vlid reasons as to why i would not include the information fo the created item unless we decide on using nested tooltips for it. That's yet to have been discussed further. I've corrected create to take the name and quality of the item now, and create a lootlink inside the template, the old way wasn't fully tested, sorry. -- 12:31, 30 January 2007 (EST) ::I think a nested tooltip would be perfectly fine, personally. Stays true to keeping the original information in one central spot, though I suspect we'd have to do more fancy ifs in the item article to achieve it. Worth it? Hmm.. -- 12:36, 30 January 2007 (EST) :::Well if a nested tooltip is agreed upon, then i'll do it after the item template is sorted (as that's what is needed to make it function). For now, i'll leave it as a look link. -- 12:45, 30 January 2007 (EST) ---- To Do *Set (Link to set, or possibly arrange for transclusion of the set bonus list.) *Gem Attributes (Allow to be used multiple times in this param.) *Source (Only use if from one source, linked.) *Use (Professions or Quests only, linked.) *item page Disambiguations :'gem attributes'? as in ? --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:21, 1 March 2007 (EST) Bluish text for some stuff Is there a specific reason why some things show up in this bluish color? It kind of annoys me because it is very similar to the visited link color, but many things in this color are not links. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 6:13 PM PST 5 Feb 2007 ::Yes, all non-default tooltip information is in this colour. I chose it because it matches the wowwiki colour scheme. Tooltips do not contain wiki styled links, so imo it shouldn't be an issue. This colour btw ;) If you you can think of a better colour, all ears. -- 21:20, 5 February 2007 (EST) Monolithic kernel vs micro kernel ? What do we gain by a one-size-fits-all template (over the buffet-style boilerplate in use currently)? It seems we lose a lot of flexibility by putting all tooltips into a fixed template. Tusva made reference to this as well. My own preference would be towards having begintooltip/endtooltip arranements with the content filled in as needed; directly if possible, or with smaller templates as needed. This would allow composition without requiring the single Tooltip template be modified for each new feature. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:50, 27 February 2007 (EST) :it is no longer on the boilerplate, it was laready decided to use this template, not by me. The reasons why it's better? allow me to list. :# It does not incorrectly use table markup unlike the old one, which caused issues with layout and was semantically incorrect. :# It uses a combination or lists and floats, allowing it to be highly accesable by browsers and users that do not fully support styling. :# It uses a predefined layout and contains all possible tooltip parameters. This not only makes it alot easier for people to use without full knowledge, but it guides them on what a tooltip needs to include, and it does not require a knowledge of styling, xhtml or wiki markup. :# It has alot of features, and some automated features that the previous one did not and could not provide. :Creating it into begin and end templates is a step back in the wrong direction. this forces users to have to know what the tooltip needs nad a knowledge of how to layout it out, order it, style it and mark it up. So no, i do not condone the use of such templates and am strictly against them. :There is no need for flexability in a tooltip, it is a rigid set of rules that need to be followed, so no flexability can be lost. This template itself is flexable and has great potential in the sense that it adapts to it's surroundings, uses and needs (and there are plans to make it higly centralized for all uses and needs of items). :I've rarely ever agreed with anything Tusva has said, he tends to do things his own way against the logic, reason, and advice of others, without discussing it. -- 15:06, 27 February 2007 (EST) ::I like this tooltip template, but I'm gonna have to get used to remembering all the parameters, like I sort have with . Can you give more examples of how this tooltip template works with a variety of items and other things like recipes and abilities/[buffs/[debuffsspells? I'm concerned it doesn't quite work for recipes. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 2:38 PM PST 27 Feb 2007 :::More examples? Sure, give me a few mins. Just a heads up though, the entire parameter list and explanation of each is now on Boilerplate:Item -- 17:54, 27 February 2007 (EST) ::Flexability... as in "what do I use until the tooltip template supports xxx". You don't cover that. I will point out also centralizing it also makes it a central point for failure. Not a selling point in my book, but be that as it may. :: From my own experience, the Item boilerplate was an exercise in cutting, pasting, and trimming. not very much knowledge needed. I can hope that your template rises to that level. (See my request below.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:21, 1 March 2007 (EST) Examples (as per request) 1. How it currently is (and how it should stay imo). |ilvl=23 }} 2. A possible future look (done through cheating a param atm) if nested tooltips for recipes are desired. |ilvl=23 }} |mats=Perfect Deviate Scale (6), Deviate Scale (4), Fine Thread (2) |charge=1 |cast=3 sec |sell= |ilvl=23 }} Neither one is designed to emulate the WoW tooltip with all it's failings, it's simply a wikified tooltip using what will be familar to WoW players. On the wiki, a nested tooltip is not practical, as it can be seen in one click. In WoW it is, as there is no UI implementation to do such a thing, and even if there was, it would ultimately be impractical to do. WoW however, does nest tooltips rather poorly, so i will not condone copying that method either way. Still want more examples, just request. -- 18:27, 27 February 2007 (EST) :Oops, I missed these examples... using a tooltip in a tooltip works. :How about this transclusion mania! (just used below) : :--Fandyllic (talk · ) 3:48 PM PST 28 Feb 2007 ::Oddly, the left float isn't being recognized there :S weird. But yeah. Obviously i would have to tweak things (font-sizes, perhaps dropping when transcluded, some possible border fixes) but i want to wait on a vote. I'm personally holding out on a solution from Teomyr, that Tepetkhet came up with. Basically, have the loot link style it has currently, but it will expand on click, into a nested tooltip. Similar to how the ToC can be hidden and shown. -- 19:01, 28 February 2007 (EST) ::I very much dislike the inclusion of the second tooltip inside the first. A link to the created object, sure. But for me, the included tooltip breaks up the recipe tooltip entirely too much to be elegant. The Deviate Scale Belt is a good example of this, and it by no means holds a record for tooltip size. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:21, 1 March 2007 (EST) :::I'm not stronly attached to an imbedded tooltip, but it makes creating recipe tooltip creation much easier and more like the real thing. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 3:21 PM PST 1 Mar 2007 Template usage expansion requests On the template page, would you provide a description of each parameter, including # default value # the appropriate values, where limited (eg bind, type, slot) # whether the above "appropriate values" have side effects (like, for instance, does listing an item as slot-finger automatically insert it in Category:Rings?) # the set of templates used for any given parameter (eg sell) For the examples on the template page, would you also # make the entire example 'nowiki'd, so that a text cut-and-paste could be used without dropping into "edit the template". # put the tooltip adjacent to the example, instead of having 2 examples followed by the expression One of the things I disliked about the earlier item boilerplate was having to edit it to cut-and-paste the source. Maybe it is just me? Sure, I could do these things myself, but I hesitate to disturb your 'ownership' of the page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:21, 1 March 2007 (EST) :Sorry, not completely following all this. :S :Before i start, i have no ownership of the page, but i do consider it a good idea to discuss it first just to ensure what you're doing is a good idea. :# There are no default values. If you don't specify something, it doesn't appear (except in the occasions already listed) :# None of them are hard limited, at least not currently. Boilerplate: Item lists suggested values and provides a guideline for this. :# The only ones that do are already displayed (eg. Locked). Adding categories, if values are hard coded, would be a possibility for the future. :# If you mean for example, then that's already done. :# The examples are already (not sure about entirely, but you shouldn't need to c&p those parts as you'll be changing them more thna likely), though i imagine you mean the results of each example, which would defeat the point as it's already listed. :# I'd rather not, there's positioning issues that this would cause, and they're logical enough to not need to. :I'd imagine, the reason boilerplates are done the way you desribe, is because its allows the users to understand what it should look like and how changes would impact it. It's easy enough to just hit edit to read the xhtml comments and to copy and paste, though i would personally like to see a better solution used, as removing the xhtml comments after copying and pasting can be time consuming. Either way, this really isn't something to address here, or that i can change on my own. -- 17:43, 1 March 2007 (EST) Comment, Description, and srcuse Why was comment made darker? It's now the incorrect colour and looks ugly. Also in what way does it different from Description? I've never seen description, and if they're meant to be the same colour, they can be shared as i'm fairly sure they don't both get used at the same time. Also, Source and Use (which i assume srcuse is supposed to be) need to be split up and use similar styling to the rest. I'll leave description for now until that's confirmed, but changing the rest. -- 18:32, 2 March 2007 (EST) Sell The sell parameter generates the text "Sell (results of gsc template)". This looks bad. I would change it back to "sells for (value) to vendors", but it's a locked page. If my string is not acceptable to you, I'd also find nullifying the parameter (omitting the line entirely) acceptable as an interim solution. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:56, 8 March 2007 (EST) :You can check User:Montronax/Sandbox/Tooltip for a result of this edit (The lowest tooltip on the page) -- 05:47, 9 March 2007 (EST) ::Don't know about other people, but looks good to me. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Disambig items Noticed the need of an implementation that allowed for the FULLPAGENAME check to be overwritten by a name in case the itempage (like Hurricane (bow)) is disambigged (WoWWiki talk:Village pump Section Item Help) I went in and did a small rewrite of the check to allow a disambigged item page to show the correct tooltip. You can see the result in User:Montronax/Sandbox/Tooltip. And here are some examples of how it works: Will produce: Basicly what I did was rewritting the following line of code: | | then= : }}}| else= }}}}}}} |then=1 |else=0.85}} And included a check which checks if the disambig parameter is set: | }| then= | then= : }| else= }}}| else= | then= : }}}| else= }}}}}}}}} |then=1 |else=0.85}} Hope it helps :-) -- 05:47, 9 March 2007 (EST) :Hey, admins, could some of you implement this thing? Seems to be working well and would be quite useful. -- Vysogota 16:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT) ::It doesn't quite work; "Some item" remains a link even on "Some items (item)". To the disambiguation, no less. --Sky (t · · w) 00:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT) Multiple Currently the template says to do |effect=Use: then |elink= for the linked body, however this runs into problems when you want to have two linked effects on the tooltip. the three permintations are ; |effect=Use: Equip: Shows as it should |effect=Use: |elink= |effect=Equip: |elink= Shows only the equp. |effect=Use: Equip: |elink= Shows as it should, but in a stupid hackish way My suggestion would be to do away with elink all together and just use the first example i showed as the default way of doing it, but keeping the elink format as not to break current pages --Kaso 16:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT) :Try this: |effect= |elink= Use: Equip: :Although I'm curious what has Argent dawn commission and Reckless charge on the same item ^.^ --Psyker7 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT) Requirements on items... how to? Hi, I created Spellfire Vest using this template. I used the tag to add "Requires Spellfire Tailoring", but the resulting tooltip has the text at the end, while it really should stay after the lvl70 requirement. Which is the proper tag to use here? Thanks for any help.--ParatwaSS 08:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT) :I believe the skill= variable would work for what you want. Try adding |skill=Spellfire Tailoring instead of flag=.... --Fandyllic (talk · ) 2:55 PM PDT 6 Apr 2007 Change Request: Set We need to get a "set" parameter into the tooltip for armor sets and other sets. I would suggest putting it before the vendor parameter and make it a link to the specific armor set page. - ClydeJr - talk - 16:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT) Bug: socket vs sockets Reading through the template, I see that you need to use two parameters: "socket" and "sockets", the former enabling display of the latter. Should only need one. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT) Change Request: Unique Additionally, Unique, and Unique-equipped should be mutually exclusive. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT) Where did source= go? The syntax table clearly says that source= should exist, yet it doesn't. Something went wrong with the update from Tooltip/Dev? --Ragowit 15:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT) :Fixed -- 15:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT) ::Quoted from IRC, in the wowwiki channel. :: Ragowit, you there? :: Adys, yes? :: I just saw your comment in tooltip talk :: Aha :: Source= was useless, i removed it because of this mainly :: I forgot to update the doc, Ill do that now :: same for usedin :: ::I don't like the idea that one admin can do a big change (like remove/add something to a template) without a proper discussion and like the rules says at this page, agreed by several admins. ::Atleast I am already missing source, like Fandyllic says under 2.4.4 (Some requests): "Add Source and Use info that appears at the bottom of Thottbot tooltip info. This is helpful to quickly see where you can get the item or what it is used for without having to scroll down to a Source section or look at categories." ::--Ragowit 16:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT) ::: The item's source should be the very first thing in the item page by the current boilerplate. You don't have to put the whole damn world into the tooltip. 17:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT) :::: The item boilerplate is often overkill to many people (including me), if you just want to start an item page. However, it apparently is a convenient excuse to remove things from the tooltip template. :::: Even if I put it back in, the cabal will remove it. It happened before, it will happen again. I formally give up on trying to make any changes in this tooltip template. Some people want it a specific way and don't really want to compromise. This is why you will generally notice I have been withdrawing from admin related interactions. :::: Sorry, Ragowit, I'm outnumbered. --Fandyllic (talk · ) 8 PM PDT 4 May 2007 ::::: When you say overkill the thing that pops to my mind is shoving everything into the tooltip. Have you seen pages like Marksman's Bow? I'm not quite sure how that is overkill. The mass majority of item pages I've seen are rather minimalistic like this, not many items have the need for further elaboration or have some in depth lore that needs detailed out. In my view, if the in-game tooltip does not show the info, neither should ours. 01:58, 5 May 2007 (EDT) :::::: I am not happy with the unilateral change as well - I have asked Adys for a comment. Fandyllic, it saddens me that you think there is some conspiracy here - there isn't. You would be correct in thinking that a fair amount of discussion (and some decision making) occurs on the IRC channel, and it's very hard for all stuff to filter down to be documented on the wiki - that said, as I noted at the top of the page, large changes like these should be discussed first. Please, you are all welcome to join IRC - we don't sit there gossiping, and it is the main way we get to chat to Rustak. 12:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT) ::::::: I'm not completely opposed to IRC, it's just that it is transient and not audit-able in any real way. Also, we supposedly established some simple rules for this template and it saddens me that an admin was the first one to break them and not appear to have any remorse, desire to follow the rule, propose a change, or undo the change. In the past, I would have undone this change, but I'd like to see someone else take the lead in promoting consistency, enforcement, and just plain respect for the actions of others without projecting a "holier than thou attitude." --Fandyllic (talk · ) 8:07 AM HST 9 May 2007 :I intend to create a set of more purpose-built item tooltip boilerplates and examples, with explanations. I'm currently constructing it off of my user page, but I invite others to comment and/or edit these pages. Especially if I don't get around to them in useful order. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Small error Hey, there seems to be a small error in the last version of the template. The line which breaks the tooltip in opera. If I change the html-source manually to ClydeJr]] - talk - 16:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT) Param Pairs Ok, to clear up this confusion.. Though first of all, don't expect me reply after this, this is a rare occasion i'm going to post something. >_> unique and unique-equipped are different things, they are not the same, they both belong seperately. effect and elink, socketbonus and sblink etc. are paired to work around a limitation of the old conditional templates. Values for , etc. could not be parsed correctly if they contained certain characters, mostly stuff commonly used in html. Thus, i had to create pairs, one to check for the existance (a null but defined value worked by doing the conditional in a certain way, and repeated again in another way for a non-null and defined value. You can see more about how i did this on my sandbox) of the param to display it, the other to contain the actual value of html or other templates. I know it can look confusing, i keep having to look over it again to remind myself why some things were done in a certain way, but i'm sure you guys will be able to pull it apart and put it back together again. :P I see there is now a better way to do this with parser functions and i'm glad, cos it was messy. I am talking to Adys often and throwing in some "how i did it"s and "why i did it"s like this so he can work on a new dev version, though that's as far as i'm going. -- 11:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT) Items in categories as with the Questbox template... #qbegin: This should automatically add "Category:Quest_Starting_Items" to the page. #qitem: add "Category:Quest Items" to the page. #bag: add "Category:Bags" All: only if not an included page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) :We could do much more with the categorizing (auto catting qualities etc etc). Personally I don't think it's a good idea but I can't really say. Also if we do that, we will need a param recat=no or something. -- 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC) : I'd love to see automatic cats, but we'd have to check against the page name since wouldn't work... but it could be done fairly easily... 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)